Colin Webster on God's existence (Hey Julie!)

by Rex B13 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    Here is an article that deals directly with questions that an honest, searching person might ask. The author starts out very simply for the benefit of all.
    There is also a books list at the end of the article. I know that some will find this information useful.

    Has science disproved the existence of God?
    by Colin Webster
    The simple answer to this question is no, because science can neither be used to prove nor disprove the existence of God.

    The main reason why science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God is primarily because God is a infinitely more superior being than we are, indeed the immense amounts of knowledge that we currently possess is still miniscule compared with the vastness and complexity of the God in whose universe we live. It would be rather like a snail trying to comprehend a human in whose garden it happens to be in. The snail simply does not possess the intelligence to discover or adequately explain what a human is. Likewise man can never fully explain or for that matter explain away God, simply because he is a greater being. This is why God says:

    "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD: "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8–9) (NIV)

    It is therefore down to the superior being to reveal himself to the inferior being. It is down to God to reveal himself to us and that is precisely what he has done most clearly through his Son Jesus Christ but also through his written word the Bible as well as through the creation he has made. We therefore have to weigh up and examine all the evidence revealed to us, which is a scientific principle in itself.

    Unnatural Enemies

    John Blanchard points out that when the Royal Society, Britain’s oldest and most prestigious body of its kind, was founded in 1662, its founders had no qualms about dedicating their scientific work ‘to the glory of God’.
    Nowadays however, it appears that there has been a divorce between science and religion, which should never have occurred. They are not enemies, but friends, for Biblical Christianity has never had anything to fear from honest science (Do you see that, Julie?). Indeed, science sheds much light on the sheer wonder, vastness and complexity of the creation that God has made for us to explore. Science tells us a great deal about how the world works and how God-given natural laws function. At the same time the Bible tells us about the God who put those natural laws there in the first place.

    Throughout history some of the most prominent scientists who ever lived have retained the benefits and balance between their faith in God and their scientific fields of study. They saw that the laws of nature are in fact the laws of God. Here are a few of the more well known committed Christians who were scientists:

    Francis Bacon, (1561-1626), who drew up the inductive method of scientific investigation;

    German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), acknowledged as the father of modern physical astronomy;

    French mathematician, philosopher and scientist Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), who made massive contributions to hydrostatics, hydrodynamics and differential calculus;

    Irish physicist Robert Boyle (1627-1691), one of the Royal Society’s founders and the father of modern chemistry;

    Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), universally acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived;

    Chemist and physicist Michael Faraday (1791-1867), who discovered electromagnetic induction and introduced the concept of magnetic lines of force;

    Samuel Morse (1791-1889), the American inventor of the electric telegraph;

    British scientist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), the father of modern physics.

    Physicist James Joule (1818-1889), the first man to measure the mechanical equivalent of heat;

    Physicist William Thomson (1824-1907), who established the Kelvin scale of absolute temperatures and gave precise terminology to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics;

    Physicist and astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), who dominated the world of stellar astronomy and was one of the earliest exponents of the theory of relativity.

    (kindly supplied by John Blanchard)

    This list of prominent scientists who are committed Christians continues to this day. One of whom is Sir John Houghton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and former Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office up until 1991. In the opening pages of his book ‘The search for God’ Sir John states ‘ I am a working scientist; most of my contributions have been of a fairly practical kind to experimental science. I have no training in or detailed knowledge of philosophy or theology. But it is important to me that my science and my faith should not be held in separate compartments but should support and illuminate each other.’ (The Search For God Lion Publications 1995 p8). Sir John points out that when he goes into his science lab he never leaves his faith in God outside the door but takes it with him and equally he does not leave his science outside the gates of the church either. So science and Christianity are perfectly compatible and ought to have due respect for each other.

    This is why Professor Ghillean Prance, until recently the Director of London’s Royal Botanic Gardens confidently said : ‘All my studies in science … have confirmed my faith. I regard the Bible as my principal source of authority.’ This view is echoed in the words of Professor Verna Wright, an outstanding British medical expert who originated multi-disciplinary research on bio-engineering, who said : ‘Because Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he can address himself to the very issues which science highlights but cannot solve. He deals with the problem of our nature’. Here Professor Wright hits upon an interesting point, that despite the immense benefits and abilities of science, it does have its limitations too. There are some things that science cannot explain nor for that matter solve, regardless of its great advances.

    Science has limitations

    Fraser Watts, Starbridge lecturer in both theology and natural science at Cambridge University, stated ‘I do not know of any research that conflicts with religion. The problem comes from the ideological position, held by a minority of scientists, that science is the only valid form of knowledge and has got all the answers.’
    (That sounds like A.F. J.H. and a few others here!)
    (provided by John Blanchard)

    Watts recognised the fact that although science can tell us much about the world we live in, science has its limitations. Science can tell us how an instrument makes a sound, but it cannot answer the question ‘is the music enjoyable?’ It can tell us how a plant grows but it cannot quantify the beauty of a flower. It can tell us that a kiss is an exchange of microbes, but it cannot tell us what love is. Science can examine creation, but it cannot examine the Creator.

    Incompatibilities between science and religion do tend to arise when some scientists step beyond their sphere of study and enter into philosophical speculation. They make statements which go beyond the scientific data and the truth or falsehood of those statements is not determined by that data. This is what many Christians object to, when certain scientists make absolute statements that are not backed up by sufficient evidence and which often ignores other evidences. Perhaps the reason why some scientists dismiss the possibility of God is based far more on a preconceived philosophy.
    (Amen to that!)

    Some scientists have preconceived ideas about God

    Some scientists do not believe in the miraculous and therefore approach the whole subject of God’s existence with the preconception that he does not exist! This in itself is unscientific because the scientist is making a presupposition prior to the examination of the evidence. This evidence is found by considering the following data; the person of Jesus Christ, the authenticity of the Bible, the uniqueness of man, the orderliness of the universe, the changed lives of Christians, archaeological evidences and the possibility of the miraculous (that which goes beyond known natural explanations due to the intervention of God).

    The dismissal of the above mentioned evidences are commonplace amongst some claim to be scientific and yet a failure to examine carefully the person of Jesus Christ and the Bible is a failure to examine the clearest evidence we have anywhere concerning the question of God’s existence and that in and of itself would be the worst case of scientific neglect.

    When speaking to people on the streets about God I often encounter this dismissive reply from some people who claim they cannot possibly believe in God because ‘they are a scientist!’ But as Roger Carswell rightly points out ‘there are scientists who do not believe in God, but that is because they are people who do not believe in God, not because they are scientists.’ (Roger Carswell Questions and Answers from the Bible p 40). As you will see from this brief paper, being a scientist is not an adequate reason for not believing in God, because there are many scientists who do believe in God.

    What experiment would you use to examine God?

    If you want to test the temperature of water you use a thermometer; if you want to examine sound you use a microphone; but what experiment does one set up in order to examine God? Therein lies the key problem for the atheistic scientist who seeks to dismiss God’s existence from examining nature alone. There is absolutely nothing in testable science that has disproved God’s existence. Might I also add that there is nothing in testable science that conclusively proves God’s existence either! (there, I beat you to it!). Yet everything that is portrayed in classrooms, universities and the television today gives the distinct impression that science has indeed disproved God’s existence and of course it never will. Why? Primarily because science deals with the examination of matter, atoms, molecules and electrons, but the Bible states that ‘God is Spirit’ (John 4:24), so what experiment does one use to examine non-matter? Indeed, can you examine non-matter? If we can’t then how can any scientist operating at the natural level make an absolute statement regarding the supernatural level? No scientist can. As Michael Poole, lecturer in science education at King’s College, London says, ‘Science is the study of the physical world. Therefore questions about God’s existence lie outside its terms of reference.’ (Michael Poole A Guide to Science and Belief, Lion Publications, p.28). Perhaps this is why God himself says, ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’ (Isaiah 55:8,9) (NIV).

    The closest the Bible ever comes to an experiment is found in the following verses, the first is from the Old Testament in Psalm 34:8 which says: Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.(NIV). The second is from the lips of Jesus himself where in John 7:17 he says: “If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own” (NIV). I would encourage you to try this.

    Having said this the examination of the orderliness of the universe and the laws of nature have enabled many scientists to conclude that there is an intelligent mind and creator behind the complex laws that govern the universe. Take for instance the example of Dr Boris Dotsenko who was a top Russian scientist. He studied in Moscow’s State University, where in 1954 he obtained a Ph.D in Physical and Mathematical Sciences. After doing research in rocket technology in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, he moved to the nuclear branch of the Institute of Physics in Kiev. He described himself as being ‘a convinced atheist, having absorbed Marxist thinking into the very marrow of my bones.’ Yet his studies in science and a chance discovery of a copy of the New Testament led him to the most remarkable discovery of his career. He said: ‘At that time I had a particular interest in the Law of Entropy, a fundamental law of nature concerned with the probable behaviour of the particles (molecules, atoms, electrons and so on) of any physical system. This law, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, says that left to itself any physical system will decay as its matter becomes increasingly disorganized. As I thought it through, it occurred to me that as the universe was still intact there must be an amazingly powerful organizing force at work, keeping the universe controlled and in order. What is more, this force must be non-material or it would disintegrate. Eventually I came to the conclusion that this omnipotent and controlling force was the God of whom the Bible speaks.’ (supplied by John Blanchard)

    Please note that Dr Dotsenko did not abandon his scientific views in order to accept a transcendent God, instead his new found Christian faith has enriched every aspect of his studies as a scientist and he wishes to pass this on to his students. Now a professor of science in Canada he says: ‘As a professor, I want to train my students in science. More importantly, I want to help them to become people who realize their chief responsibilities — to society, to the world around them, and above all to God himself.’

    Many Christians are Scientists

    If science had ‘proved’ that God did not exist, then no-one in their right mind would be a Christian, least of all a scientist. Yet at this moment in time there are thousands of scientists who are committed Christians and see no contradiction between their faith and their specialised scientific field of study. Indeed it might surprise you to know that of the 500 or so people who attend Cornerstone Church there are currently over thirty doctors of science of one sort or another. These range from a professor of microbiology, doctors in biology, medical doctors, metallurgists, pharmacists, engineers and physicists, all of whom are committed Christians who see no conflict between their faith and their field of study.

    Here are what some more well known scientists from the past have said about their faith:

    Samuel F.B. Morse the inventor of the first telegraph said ‘The nearer I approach the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God’s remedy for fallen man are more appreciated and the future is illuminated with hope and joy’(Roger Carswell Questions and Answers from the Bible; Ambassador publications pg 40).

    Michael Faraday – Inventor of the electric generator. “The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, was the sole and sufficient guide for each individual at all times and in all circumstances.” (Roger Carswell Questions and Answers from the Bible; Ambassador publications pg 40).

    Dr Boris P.Dotsenko – one time head of nuclear physics, Institute of Physics, Kiev: “Today I know that the Bible is the greatest book of faith, in which the acts of God are recorded for believers. Its final proof will come with the return of our Lord and the establishment of His kingdom.” (Roger Carswell Questions and Answers from the Bible; Ambassador publications pg 40).

    Albert Einstein was once commended for his great discoveries in his theory of relativity, but Einstein humbly replied, ‘All I am doing is tracing the lines that God already put there in the first place!’ I believe that Einstein got it right and his comment expressed the balance between true science and the true God. Science explores the universe that God has made, and yes it might find out some of the means that God used in order to create the universe, but it must never exclude God from his own universe, for to do so is to create the greatest ‘missing link’ in all our equations.

    The same evidence but a different conclusion

    There is absolutely nothing that has been discovered by science that has shaken or disproved God’s existence. Christians who are scientists look through exactly the same microscope at molecules and organisms and peer through the same telescope at the night sky and yet come to a totally different conclusion based on the same evidence as the atheistic scientist. In fact the Christian has included extra evidence that the atheist cannot bring themselves to seriously consider - the Bible as God’s revelation of Himself to us. Yet the Bible contains evidence that is equally as valid as any fossil that is dug from the ground or new planet that is discovered. This discovery of God has enriched each of these scientists perspective in their respective field of scientific study and robbed them of nothing - least of all their intelligence.

    As Sir John Houghton concludes at the end of his book The Search For God: ‘Theology by its very nature should have very wide horizons. God, after all, if he is God at all, is involved in everything. Yet so often our view of God is a limited one; we allow him to be present in the spiritual side of life, but give him little say in more material things. Yet I have been at pains to point out the two revelations of God – the revelation in nature and the revelation in the person of Jesus. I began by suggesting that including God in the scientific picture is like the inclusion of perspective in a picture. But a picture is still a two – dimensional image. Adding God’s self-revelation in Jesus is like having binocular vision of a three dimensional scene. An appreciation of depth is present when a scene is viewed with both eyes or through a pair of binoculars rather than through one eye…Our appreciation of God is very flat unless we look at the whole range of his activity in an integrated way. …‘Science and religion are not poles apart. Both are searching for reality and truth…A common experience of those who pursue the search for God is the discovery that God is quietly but intently searching for them. If you feel that God is pursuing you, don’t play hard to get!’ (The Search for God p 216)

    Its amazing to think that millions of pounds are ploughed into developing satellites that listen out for possible signs of superior life forms on other planets that may be trying to contact us– yet at the same time the atheist cannot bring themselves to accept that THE most superior life form of all has already been in touch with us – but many chose to ignore him! I trust that you won’t ignore him.

    The most unscientific thing a person can do is to write off something which they have not examined properly. But that is exactly what many people do when it comes to Christianity. (Pay attention Julie!) Some have a vague idea about what the Bible says or a bad experience of church-ianity which gives them enough religion to inoculate them from the real thing! Can I encourage you to re-examine the Bible and the God who is there and who has not left himself dumb (Ex-JWs come to mind here!)

    Recommended Books

    Kirsten Birkett, Unnatural enemies (St Matthias Press 1997).
    Sir John Houghton, The search for God (Lion 1995).
    Phillip E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism (IVP 1997).
    Michael Poole, A guide to science and belief (Lion 1994).
    David Wilkinson, God, the big bang and Stephen Hawking (Monarch 1997).
    John Blanchard, Does God believe in Atheists? (Evangelical Press 2000)
    Ernest Lucas Can we believe Genesis today? (IVP 2001)
    Stephen Gaukroger, It makes sense (Scripture Union 1988).
    Roger Carswell Questions and Answers from the Bible; Ambassador publications
    To purchase these books online try www.wesleyowen.com or www.amazon.co.uk

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I gotta admit, you do manage to get an "Oh Lord" out of me every time you post, Wrecks.

  • Jigrigger
    Jigrigger

    Hi Rex,

    This really grabbed my attention

    This is what many Christians object to, when certain scientists make absolute statements that are not backed up by sufficient evidence and which often ignores other evidences. Perhaps the reason why some scientists dismiss the possibility of God is based far more on a preconceived philosophy.
    (bold added)

    The above quotation could be worded like this: "This is what many athiests object to, when certain creationists make absolute statements that are not backed up by sufficient evidence and which often ignore other evidences. Perhaps the reason why creationists dismiss what some scientists say is based far more on a preconcieved philosophy."

    You give a prime example at the beginning of your post, to quote,

    The main reason why science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God is primarily because God is a infinitely more superior being than we are

    Right off the mark you make the enormous assumption - which you then state as fact - that God is an infinitely superior being.
    You haven't established the existance of "God", let alone what attributes this "God" possesses. Yet, this belief is crucial to whatever else follows. For instance, when certain phenomena can't be explained by scientists, creationists already have the answer...it requires no actual proof beyond the standard fare that is usually offered up by creationists - the "orderliness of the universe", the "uniqueness of man", archaeological "evidence", and anecdotal tales of miraculous events, the "stuff" urban legends may have been born of, but that's just my personal view of "miracles".

    Tell me, how does the "orderliness" of the universe prove the existence of "God"?
    Here's how you quoted one scientist as saying: "

    This law, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, says that left to itself any physical system will decay as its matter becomes increasingly disorganized. As I thought it through, it occurred to me that as the universe was still intact there must be an amazingly powerful organizing force at work, keeping the universe controlled and in order. What is more, this force must be non-material or it would disintegrate. Eventually I came to the conclusion that this omnipotent and controlling force was the God of whom the Bible speaks.’

    Well, I'm no scientist by any means and I don't have any significant knowledge of physics beyond what a grade 12 education provided me with, but I don't think the scientist quoted was particularly bright.
    Even I can see that under laws of physics which can be demonstrated mathematically and now actually be observed with raw data from equipment such as the Hubble as well as from the worlds' most sophisticated observatories, that all of the matter in the universe never gets to be totally at rest. The movement, mass, and the position of every object - from the tiniest particles to the largest galaxies and everything contained therein - relative to every other object is orchestrated by physical laws which have always existed. As long as matter existed it has always had to obey these laws.
    You think that "God" created these laws?
    Do you think God was actually sitting around one day and said...
    "Let's do some shit with all this matter. Let's organize it into things...

    The uniqueness of man?? Take a look around. The natural world is full of unique species. Why should man be regarded as anymore "unique" than say a dolphin or a whale? Show me how that proves the existence of "God".

    Archaeological eveidence? Show me evidence that proves, to the absolute exclusion of all other possibilities that for instance there was actually a flood that encompassed the globe, or any other event in the Bible rendered as a direct act of "God".
    The same goes for "miracles". Show me actual, verifiable proof of a miracle. Lots of folks can tell you all kinds of tales about how some strange unexplainable shit happened to a friend of a friend or even to themselves, but verification always seems to be a problem...

    I think that there are a lot of people who like the comfort of not having to rely on "proof". Because they start out with the basic assumption that "God" exists, and that this being is all-powerful and capable of anything, then, regardless of the fact that this basic premise hasn't really been established, when confronted with something that can't be explained, they just simply say "another one of God's mysteries...".
    I think that snake oil salesmen, over the years, got rich from people like this...

    Just my nickle...

    Jrig

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    The main reason why science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God is primarily because God is a infinitely more superior being than we are

    No it is not. The main reason that science cannot disprove the existence of god(s) is because it's not a testable hypothesis.
    The god of the bible (if we take the most literal interpretations) obviously does not exist because the character, as written in the bible, is internally inconsistent. However, the existence of a god with suitably vague characteristics cannot, even in principle, be tested by science. That is clearly not a reason to believe in a god, certainly not a reason to abandon science and reality for superstition and religion.

    (Edited for punctuation.)
    --
    Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Dear Rex,

    Sorry to be blunt, but do you read this stuff?

    ... science can neither be used to prove nor disprove the existence of God.

    The main reason why science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God is primarily because God is a infinitely more superior being than we are, indeed the immense amounts of knowledge that we currently possess is still miniscule compared with the vastness and complexity of the God in whose universe we live.

    This is intellectually lame. It is saying science can't prove the existance of god because god exists and is big and clever. It's saying god exists BEFORE offering any reasoning or proof on the subject. It might convince you, but me and my cat say 'Miaow'.

    I’ll <snip> the next bit, as it repeats the same fatuous assumption as the above quoted portion.

    It also quotes the Bible, in a way similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses mindlessly quoting the scripture ‘All scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial’ as proof that the Bible is inspired. In other words, God must exist as he’s quoted in this book saying how big and clever he is.

    It is therefore down to the superior being to reveal himself to the inferior being.

    Oh my word, we agree on something. Admittedly ONE thing, but it’s a start. But let’s not kill the fatted calf yet;

    It is down to God to reveal himself to us and that is precisely what he has done most clearly through his Son Jesus Christ but also through his written word the Bible …

    I think we’ve covered the fact that the Bible saying there is a God doesn’t prove it, otherwise we would have nightly visits from the Sandman et. al..

    … as well as through the creation he has made. We therefore have to weigh up and examine all the evidence revealed to us, which is a scientific principle in itself.

    Yes, scientific, but LOOK at the implicit psychology of the phrasing; ‘revealed to us’. A scientist would say ‘available’. Revealed bespeaks the authors abiding and QED assumption that there is a god.

    But, let’s play along;

    Unnatural Enemies

    John Blanchard points out that when the Royal Society, Britain’s oldest and most prestigious body of its kind, was founded in 1662, its founders had no qualms about dedicating their scientific work ‘to the glory of God’.

    They were Scientists. And they mention god. And this is meant to be some form of reasoned argument in favour of believing in god? These people had no concept of a fossil record, electricity, the size and history of the Universe, the practical application of steam power, or any other of many scientific advances made since 1662. Their belief in god is no more proof of god then their lack of belief in quarks is a proof that quark do not exist.

    Nowadays however, it appears that there has been a divorce between science and religion, which should never have occurred.
    [/science]

    Another unsupported suppostion.

    They are not enemies, but friends, for Biblical Christianity has never had anything to fear from honest science (Do you see that, Julie?). Indeed, science sheds much light on the sheer wonder, vastness and complexity of the creation that God has made for us to explore. Science tells us a great deal about how the world works and how God-given natural laws function. At the same time the Bible tells us about the God who put those natural laws there in the first place.

    This is all twaddle. This starts off as a supposed demonstration of god’s existence and has yet to offer one shred of evidence.

    Throughout history some of the most prominent scientists who ever lived have retained the benefits and balance between their faith in God and their scientific fields of study. They saw that the laws of nature are in fact the laws of God. Here are a few of the more well known committed Christians who were scientists:

    Francis Bacon, (1561-1626), who drew up the inductive method of scientific investigation;

    German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), acknowledged as the father of modern physical astronomy;

    French mathematician, philosopher and scientist Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), who made massive contributions to hydrostatics, hydrodynamics and differential calculus;

    Irish physicist Robert Boyle (1627-1691), one of the Royal Society’s founders and the father of modern chemistry;

    Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), universally acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived;

    Chemist and physicist Michael Faraday (1791-1867), who discovered electromagnetic induction and introduced the concept of magnetic lines of force;

    Samuel Morse (1791-1889), the American inventor of the electric telegraph;

    British scientist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), the father of modern physics.

    Physicist James Joule (1818-1889), the first man to measure the mechanical equivalent of heat;

    Physicist William Thomson (1824-1907), who established the Kelvin scale of absolute temperatures and gave precise terminology to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics;

    Physicist and astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), who dominated the world of stellar astronomy and was one of the earliest exponents of the theory of relativity.

    (kindly supplied by John Blanchard)

    Argument from authority. Completely empty logic. Hitler hated Jews, so we should too? Lemmings jump off cliffs, should we do that? These people, for one thing, however great scientists they may have been, did not have access to the same data we have now. As several Scientists have said (Einstein may have been the first, I don’t recall), “We stand on the shoulders of the giant who went before us and see further than they”. Perhaps some of these Scientists you cite would have been atheists if they lived today.

    This list of prominent scientists who are committed Christians continues to this day. One of whom is Sir John Houghton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and former Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office up until 1991. In the opening pages of his book ‘The search for God’ Sir John states ‘ I am a working scientist; most of my contributions have been of a fairly practical kind to experimental science. I have no training in or detailed knowledge of philosophy or theology. But it is important to me that my science and my faith should not be held in separate compartments but should support and illuminate each other.’ (The Search For God Lion Publications 1995 p8). Sir John points out that when he goes into his science lab he never leaves his faith in God outside the door but takes it with him and equally he does not leave his science outside the gates of the church either. So science and Christianity are perfectly compatible and ought to have due respect for each other.

    This is getting tedious. Some blokes own personal philosophy is being offered up as a poof of god’s existance.

    This is why Professor Ghillean Prance, until recently the Director of London’s Royal Botanic Gardens confidently said : ‘All my studies in science … have confirmed my faith. I regard the Bible as my principal source of authority.’ This view is echoed in the words of Professor Verna Wright, an outstanding British medical expert who originated multi-disciplinary research on bio-engineering, who said : ‘Because Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he can address himself to the very issues which science highlights but cannot solve. He deals with the problem of our nature’. Here Professor Wright hits upon an interesting point, that despite the immense benefits and abilities of science, it does have its limitations too. There are some things that science cannot explain nor for that matter solve, regardless of its great advances.

    On the same basis, that Scientists who believe in god prove that god exists (on the assumption if they can hold two seemingly polar positions it must be a proof of the validity of both), you could say that murderes believing in god were proof that god existed, because despite the polar position of murderer to Christian, the fact someone could hold both positions validated both.

    Utter rubbish Rex.

    Science has limitations

    Fraser Watts, Starbridge lecturer in both theology and natural science at Cambridge University, stated ‘I do not know of any research that conflicts with religion. The problem comes from the ideological position, held by a minority of scientists, that science is the only valid form of knowledge and has got all the answers.’
    (That sounds like A.F. J.H. and a few others here!)
    (provided by John Blanchard)

    More ludicrous statements. ‘I do not know of any research that conflicts with religion’. How can you accept the statement of someone who makes an initial assumption that is so vague it is empty. What religion? Hinduism? Nordic Paganism? Aztec Human Sacrifice? Or is he simply saying that a belief in the other (religion) doesn’t stop you being a scientist (a far step from proof of god)?

    Watts recognised the fact that although science can tell us much about the world we live in, science has its limitations. Science can tell us how an instrument makes a sound, but it cannot answer the question ‘is the music enjoyable?’ It can tell us how a plant grows but it cannot quantify the beauty of a flower. It can tell us that a kiss is an exchange of microbes, but it cannot tell us what love is. Science can examine creation, but it cannot examine the Creator.

    What has the beauty of music, or flowers, or love, have to do with proving there is a god?

    Incompatibilities between science and religion do tend to arise when some scientists step beyond their sphere of study and enter into philosophical speculation. They make statements which go beyond the scientific data and the truth or falsehood of those statements is not determined by that data. This is what many Christians object to, when certain scientists make absolute statements that are not backed up by sufficient evidence and which often ignores other evidences. Perhaps the reason why some scientists dismiss the possibility of God is based far more on a preconceived philosophy.
    (Amen to that!)

    As has been previously pointed out, religionists “make statements which go beyond the scientific data and the truth or falsehood of those statements is not determined by that data … make absolute statements that are not backed up by sufficient evidence and which often ignores other evidences [and] dismiss the possibility of God is based far more on a preconceived philosophy”


    [quote]
    Some scientists have preconceived ideas about God

    Some scientists do not believe in the miraculous and therefore approach the whole subject of God’s existence with the preconception that he does not exist!

    This whole argument has thus far been based on the premise that God exists, because he exists, M’kay?

    Now the hypocritical toad that wrote this says;

    [quote]
    This in itself is unscientific because the scientist is making a presupposition prior to the examination of the evidence.
    [quote]

    I honestly cannot be arsed refuting more of anything so simple minded.

    Rex, do try harder, this is dross…

  • Julie
    Julie

    *LOLOLOLOL*

    You think a bunch of testimonials from people who hold your view will convince me of anything? Have I been pontificating about science? Have I even asserted there is no God? No. I have merely stated that I don't believe, as you assert, that the bible is God's word. You make the aqssertion you prove it.

    Now go and answer my post you gutless coward or lose what little credibilty you have.

    Julie--who wonders why some bothered to leave the WT-cult

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    >The god of the bible (if we take the most literal interpretations) obviously does not exist because the character, as written in the bible, is internally inconsistent.

    Bullpucky. You claim this and it is only your opinion and reflective of your world-view.

    >However, the existence of a god with suitably vague characteristics cannot, even in principle, be tested by science. That is clearly not a reason to believe in a god, certainly not a reason to abandon science and reality for superstition and religion.

    Superstition is NOT what the Bible is about. The Bible explains man's exitence and his ultimate redemption, like it or not, it is the most reasonable and evidencial explanation of why the world exists in the first place.
    Science can not speak to spirituality, nor can it prove or disprove God's existence. It cannot even confirm it's own vague theories.
    Rex

  • Hojon
    Hojon

    Oh so many errors.

    First, anytime anyone ever tries to use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to disprove evolution you can quit reading right there. This is because they don't really know what it says or how it applies. Evolution in no way violates the 2nd Law, it is completely consistent with it.

    Another funny thing is where it lists Einstein as a Christian. Right. That's why he had to escape Nazi German, right? Cause of all the Christians they were putting in camps. Leave it to the Fundies to rewrite history.

    Some other interesting stuff, Newton was an astrologer and a pretty famous one at that. He based many of his daily activities on astrology. Does that mean that astrology is factual and true? Newton believed in it, it must be true then right? You say since he believed in God that god must exist, well he believed in astrology so it must be true too.

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    Hi Julie,
    Try answering the research that I posted and quit exposing your own insecurities with name-calling. Hey, do you remember the name that Rush Limbaugh coined for NOW women who don't like to be told they're wrong?
    Rex

  • chappy
    chappy

    Tell me Rex, would you believe in God withoutthe bible, Rush Limbaugh or any other crutch?

    chappy - crutchless

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit